In the years since Nicholas II’s death, it seems that there are a more sympathetic view of him as both a ruler and a person. While I can probably agree with him being a decent family man, I don’t understand the idea that he was a decent ruler. Yes, he could be considered better than his father, but that feels like a low bar to be compared to. Considering the poor living conditions of Russian peasants, the attacks on Jewish settlements, and his hindrance on any attempts to let a constitutional government fully form after the events of Bloody Sunday, it doesn’t seem like Russia was doing great under him, even before WWI. I will admit some things that he was blamed for weren’t exactly his fault, but what exactly did he do to qualify as someone who should have stayed Tsar? Is it due to the horrific events that occurred during and after the Soviet Union formed that people are nostalgic for the period before it? Is it because of the inhuman way his wife and children died that gave him a huge sympathy boost?